What about picking a woman (like Dianne Feinstein or Patty Murray) instead of Lieberman? Both would energize the women's vote in favor of Gore (and believe me, that would matter in a close election. Also neither of them is as stupid and incompetent as Palin, so there's pratically no downside). Feinstein would also help in increasing the Jewish vote (especially in Florida) and in bringing moderates to Gore, while Murray would have energized the Democratic base and also possibly brought some Nader voters back to Gore.

I don't think its exactly correct to say that each vote +1 Nader = -1 Gore and vice-versa. Some would have even voted for Bush over Gore and some would have Abstained over Gore.

I knew people with preferences like.

Bush > Nader > GoreNader > Bush > Gore

Its not always the assumed preference of

Nader > Gore > Bush

If I had to venture a guess to the preferences of Nader voters however.

~60% would have had the preference relation of Nader > Gore > Bush~40% would have had other preference relations.

Even that would have been enough for Gore to win, though. 20% of 90,000 (the total # of Nader voters in Florida) is 18,000 votes, much more than the 537 votes Gore needed to win Florida.

Sure he could have won if 60% of Nader voters had switched. But he still wouldn't have won comfortably.

Interestingly Clinton got a slightly higher % in TN in 1996 than Al Gore did himself in 2000. It was 48% vs 47.28%

It wouldn't matter if Gore would have won comfortably or not. All that would have mattered is that he would have won. Winning narrowly and winning in a landslide makes no difference to the winner--he still wins (even though a larger victory might make governing easier due to coattails). However, there is a massive difference between winning narrowly and losing narrowly.

I don't think its exactly correct to say that each vote +1 Nader = -1 Gore and vice-versa. Some would have even voted for Bush over Gore and some would have Abstained over Gore.

I knew people with preferences like.

Bush > Nader > GoreNader > Bush > Gore

Its not always the assumed preference of

Nader > Gore > Bush

If I had to venture a guess to the preferences of Nader voters however.

~60% would have had the preference relation of Nader > Gore > Bush~40% would have had other preference relations.

Even that would have been enough for Gore to win, though. 20% of 90,000 (the total # of Nader voters in Florida) is 18,000 votes, much more than the 537 votes Gore needed to win Florida.

Sure he could have won if 60% of Nader voters had switched. But he still wouldn't have won comfortably.

Interestingly Clinton got a slightly higher % in TN in 1996 than Al Gore did himself in 2000. It was 48% vs 47.28%

It wouldn't matter if Gore would have won comfortably or not. All that would have mattered is that he would have won. Winning narrowly and winning in a landslide makes no difference to the winner--he still wins (even though a larger victory might make governing easier due to coattails). However, there is a massive difference between winning narrowly and losing narrowly.

Well I suppose, but keep in mind, it was expected for him to win comfortably, considering the relative peace and prosperity of the preceding 8 years. He ended up basically fighting to a draw however.

I don't think its exactly correct to say that each vote +1 Nader = -1 Gore and vice-versa. Some would have even voted for Bush over Gore and some would have Abstained over Gore.

I knew people with preferences like.

Bush > Nader > GoreNader > Bush > Gore

Its not always the assumed preference of

Nader > Gore > Bush

If I had to venture a guess to the preferences of Nader voters however.

~60% would have had the preference relation of Nader > Gore > Bush~40% would have had other preference relations.

Even that would have been enough for Gore to win, though. 20% of 90,000 (the total # of Nader voters in Florida) is 18,000 votes, much more than the 537 votes Gore needed to win Florida.

Sure he could have won if 60% of Nader voters had switched. But he still wouldn't have won comfortably.

Interestingly Clinton got a slightly higher % in TN in 1996 than Al Gore did himself in 2000. It was 48% vs 47.28%

It wouldn't matter if Gore would have won comfortably or not. All that would have mattered is that he would have won. Winning narrowly and winning in a landslide makes no difference to the winner--he still wins (even though a larger victory might make governing easier due to coattails). However, there is a massive difference between winning narrowly and losing narrowly.

Well I suppose, but keep in mind, it was expected for him to win comfortably, considering the relative peace and prosperity of the preceding 8 years. He ended up basically fighting to a draw however.

Then how come Gore failed to open a large lead in the polls in the fall like Bush Sr. did? The conditions in 1988 and 2000 were roughly similar (good economy, lack of foreign threats, popular incumbent President), yet Bush Sr. won in a landslide and Gore lost by an extremely narrow margin.

I don't think its exactly correct to say that each vote +1 Nader = -1 Gore and vice-versa. Some would have even voted for Bush over Gore and some would have Abstained over Gore.

I knew people with preferences like.

Bush > Nader > GoreNader > Bush > Gore

Its not always the assumed preference of

Nader > Gore > Bush

If I had to venture a guess to the preferences of Nader voters however.

~60% would have had the preference relation of Nader > Gore > Bush~40% would have had other preference relations.

Even that would have been enough for Gore to win, though. 20% of 90,000 (the total # of Nader voters in Florida) is 18,000 votes, much more than the 537 votes Gore needed to win Florida.

Sure he could have won if 60% of Nader voters had switched. But he still wouldn't have won comfortably.

Interestingly Clinton got a slightly higher % in TN in 1996 than Al Gore did himself in 2000. It was 48% vs 47.28%

It wouldn't matter if Gore would have won comfortably or not. All that would have mattered is that he would have won. Winning narrowly and winning in a landslide makes no difference to the winner--he still wins (even though a larger victory might make governing easier due to coattails). However, there is a massive difference between winning narrowly and losing narrowly.

Well I suppose, but keep in mind, it was expected for him to win comfortably, considering the relative peace and prosperity of the preceding 8 years. He ended up basically fighting to a draw however.

Then how come Gore failed to open a large lead in the polls in the fall like Bush Sr. did? The conditions in 1988 and 2000 were roughly similar (good economy, lack of foreign threats, popular incumbent President), yet Bush Sr. won in a landslide and Gore lost by an extremely narrow margin.

I'm pretty sure Gore's personality is what turned a solid victory into a draw that could go either way and pretty much caused lots of bleeding to Nader.

It's hard to "win comfortably" after your party held the White House for 8 years. Neither party has a lock on the presidency, partisanship is strong and independent voters are likely to be fatigued after two terms.

Even Bush's win in 1988 wasn't all that comfortable. He was trailing Dukakis deep into the summer and really his electoral victory seems very impressive only because he pulled off an ungodly number of tight wins (California, Illinois, Pennsylvania - just to mention the big states, all won with about 51% of the vote). Shuffle Dukakis and Bentsen on the ticket and you have a true cliffhanger election.

It's hard to "win comfortably" after your party held the White House for 8 years. Neither party has a lock on the presidency, partisanship is strong and independent voters are likely to be fatigued after two terms.

Even Bush's win in 1988 wasn't all that comfortable. He was trailing Dukakis deep into the summer and really his electoral victory seems very impressive only because he pulled off an ungodly number of tight wins (California, Illinois, Pennsylvania - just to mention the big states, all won with about 51% of the vote). Shuffle Dukakis and Bentsen on the ticket and you have a true cliffhanger election.

Even flipping all states that Bush won by 6% or less. We get 286-252 for Bush-Dukakis.

It's hard to "win comfortably" after your party held the White House for 8 years. Neither party has a lock on the presidency, partisanship is strong and independent voters are likely to be fatigued after two terms.

Even Bush's win in 1988 wasn't all that comfortable. He was trailing Dukakis deep into the summer and really his electoral victory seems very impressive only because he pulled off an ungodly number of tight wins (California, Illinois, Pennsylvania - just to mention the big states, all won with about 51% of the vote). Shuffle Dukakis and Bentsen on the ticket and you have a true cliffhanger election.

Even flipping all states that Bush won by 6% or less. We get 286-252 for Bush-Dukakis.

Exactly. Dukakis would have needed to swing 4% or more to win the election, and since people began to really pay attention to the race after Labor Day and due to the fact Dukakis had many flaws (in both personality and record), it seems very unlikely that he would have gotten 4% more of the vote than he did in RL. A stronger Democrat might have been able to, but not Dukakis.

Well, yes my point was that the question should be "How did Bush win comfortably" instead of "How did Gore not win comfortably". Democrats were definitely seen as bigger favorites in early 1988 than they were in early 2000, given the normal cyclical way politics usually work. Bush got lucky when Gary Hart self-destructed and Dukakis won the primaries. Gore also got a bit lucky since he faced W instead of McCain, but overall W was still a much stronger candidate than Dukakis.

Well, yes my point was that the question should be "How did Bush win comfortably" instead of "How did Gore not win comfortably". Democrats were definitely seen as bigger favorites in early 1988 than they were in early 2000, given the normal cyclical way politics usually work. Bush got lucky when Gary Hart self-destructed and Dukakis won the primaries. Gore also got a bit lucky since he faced W instead of McCain, but overall W was still a much stronger candidate than Dukakis.

I'll admit that a Bush-Hart race in 1988 would have likely been much closer if Hart didn't have his affair. Bush Sr. might have even defeated Hart though, and even if Hart would have narrowly won, it would have only been due to his charisma and Bush Sr.'s lack of it. I admit that Gore's lack of charisma definitely cost him many votes, but he should have at least used Clinton to campaign with him and pick a better VP. He would have won that way.

Also everyone needs to remember the whole Monica L. scandal, while it sounds stupid now people were actually quite upset about it.

Why blame Gore for that, though? He wasn't involved in any way. Besides, Clinton's (job) approvals were about 60% throughout 2000, and that should have been enough for Gore to win the White House.

What do you think he should have done to stop the bleeding of potential supporters to Nader?

Campigning with Clinton might have helped, but I think his best move to prevent the bleeding of Nader supporters was to pick Feingold as VP. However, the best move to win the election would have been to pick Feinstein, since she might have helped less with Nader voters than Feingold would have, but she might have compensated for that by allowing Gore to win over many female and moderate voters that Feingold would not have delivered.

Ya Derrick and while your hero was in office we went from 5 trillion in debt to 12 trillion in debt.

His name is Derek, not Derrick. And I agree with you, Bush Jr. was a fiscal catastrophe (just like Reagan and his dad were) despite claiming to be a fiscal conservative. The debt rises that have been occuring under Obama were inherited from Bush Jr.